A flurry of reports are coming out hyping former US soldier Ryan O’Leary, who participated in the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and, hearing about the ISIS war, just unilaterally went over there to help the Kurds fight ISIS.

Instead, O’Leary got a little confused, and has decided that Iran is the real problem, even though they are, you know, on the same side in the war as the Kurds. Now, he says he’s training the Kurds to fight against Iran.

O’Leary insists there is “no difference” between Iran and ISIS, and that he is patrolling the Iran-Iraq border on the lookout for “Iranian aggression” at all times.

Except, again, Iran isn’t fighting against the Kurds, and indeed this time last year Iran became one of the first countries to directly arm the Kurds for fighting against ISIS.

O’Leary’s argument is that because he believes the nuclear deal with Iran is so super bad, and because he’s not clear on the difference between Iran and ISIS, he figures Iran will just up and invade Iraqi Kurdistan as soon as the US Congress fails to block the deal. Not that it makes any strategic sense for Iran, but everyone in the US, even the ones unclear on which one is ISIS, know Iran’s the bad guys, right?

Recently 340 US rabbis — from the full spectrum of US Judaism — signed a letter to Congress urging approval of the Iran deal. As AIPAC spends millions lobbying against the deal, perhaps the US Jewish community is not as unified as the neocons would like us to believe. Today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report discusses support for the deal:

Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Adding to his severe criticism of the Associated Press document purported to be from the IAEA’s side deal with Iran, former IAEA official Tariq Rauf appeared on the Scott Horton Show this afternoon to offer further details on the many, many problems with the document, which he believed to be a forgery.

Among the new topics discussed is the question of why AP reporter George Jahn, when presented with a secret document he wasn’t allowed to take with him, hand-transcribed the text instead of taking an actual photograph with his phone. Rauf compares the document to the “Niger Letter” ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, and goes into detail on why the allegations surrounding the Parchin site in Iran probably aren’t credible in the first place.

The AP alleged on Wednesday that the Iran deal would allow Iran to “inspect itself,” though the initial article was later heavily edited, and ended up almost entirely reaction from US hawks. After the IAEA confirmed this story was untrue, they released the transcript on Thursday, apparently in an effort to vindicate themselves. The revelation that the transcript itself is a forgery just adds to the scandal surrounding the AP’s haphazard reporting on the Iran deal.

Wednesday on “The Alan Colmes Show,” Alan spoke with Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo, who has a controversial theory about Donald Trump’s Presidential run. Raimondo believes Donald Trump might be a “false flag” candidate to help hand the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Raimondo told Alan why he thinks the Democrats are just as pro-war as Republicans, why Trump may drop out of the race (“he’ll pull a Ross Perot”) and guarantee a Clinton victory, and why Trump actually turns off conservative voters.

On Tuesday, Sheldon Richman and I had another podcast chat. As usual, Richman’s depth of knowledge was impressive and made it difficult to keep up (in the best possible way). So did his passionate rants against the warfare state (but that was because I had my thyroid removed, which makes raging slightly more difficult!).

Check him and me out. We covered Iran, Iraq, Syria, ISIS, and the horrors of the 2016 class of hawks, as well as the old school neocons’ plans to remake the Middle East in their own image.

You can listen to an audio-only version of the podcast series over here. And check out Sheldon and my other chats here. (And while you’re at it, Scott Horton’s “Eye on the Empire” series with Jeffrey Tucker is also a very worthy watch.)

Opponents of the Iran deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – loudly complain that it deals only with the nuclear issue. Why, they ask, didn’t the P5+1 talks also take up Iran’s detention of Americans and its alleged machinations in the Middle East?

They should ask the Israelis.

It was, after all, Israel’s leaders who insisted that the nuclear file be addressed first and on its own, and who pushed back hard against any attempt to forge a more comprehensive understanding or grand bargain with Iran.

So writes David Levy at Foreign Affairs magazine.

Moreover, Iran offered a comprehensive grand bargain to the United States in 2003, in which all outstanding issues would be discussed, including Iran’s support for the Palestinians. Indeed, as part of the proffered grand bargain, Iran accepted Saudi Arabia’s previous Arab Peace Initiative (2002, renewed 2007), which would have included recognition of Israel in a two-state context. President George W. Bush gave Iran’s overture the back of his hand, having branded Iran in 2002 as a member of the Axis of Evil along with Iraq and North Korea. (This was a fine thank-you for Iran’s cooperation after the 9/11 attacks.)

Sheldon Richman is chairman of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. He blogs at Free Association. Reprinted with permission from Free Assocation.